Hey, lend me your library —

Valve: “Family Sharing” for up to 10 devices coming to Steam

Only one device can actively share at any time, however.

Valve today announced that it will launch a Family Sharing feature to allow Steam users to share their game libraries with other accounts on up to 10 additional devices.

Steam Family Sharing, which will launch in a private beta in mid-September, lets users share their entire library with up to 10 devices rather than sharing individual games. Only one person can play any game from the shared library at any given time, meaning you can't use your own Steam account while someone else is actively sharing in it. This limitation makes Family Sharing somewhat similar to simply giving someone else access to your Steam library by sharing your username and password. However, this way there's no risk to your account details or e-commerce information in the process.

Steam users can share access either by enabling it in their account settings or by responding to requests to share sent by other Steam users. Borrowers will still be limited by regional restrictions on the original game, and lenders can have sharing privileges taken away if a borrower is caught engaging in cheating or fraud. All DLC purchased by the lender will be available to the borrower, but Valve warns that some games "that require an additional third-party key, account, or subscription" may not be shareable.

Steam's Family Sharing plan is very similar to a plan Microsoft originally discussed for the all-digital ecosystem initially planned for the Xbox One. That plan, whose details were always quite vague, was eventually scrapped when Microsoft backtracked on its game licensing plans. Still, Microsoft has been makingnoise about introducing a "hybrid" model sometime in the future, which would allow for sharing features on downloaded libraries while keeping disc-based games distinct and unshareable.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

So we have a system where purchased games (whether they are purchased as physical copies or digital copies) are tied to an account and can't be re-sold, but you can authorize sharing to certain friend's devices, but only one friend can play at a time. I seem to recall two months ago that such a scheme was considered "anti-consumer".

This seems even worse than the workaround today, which is to install steam with your credentials on two computers, install the games you want on one computer (say, Gone Home for the wife), and then put that computer into offline mode. The other computer can still get online and play whatever else game you want. I'm not sure what the value add is here. =)

This is kind of lame. Steam users have been asking for the ability to share, so games they no longer play can be borrowed by friends and/or family.

Valve responds by allowing games to be shared, BUT NO ONE ELSE CAN PLAY A GAME WHILE SHARED.

Yes, that's exactly what we wanted. Thank you, Gabe.

I have a feeling this was the result of serious pushback from publishers who didn't want the "value" of their products "diluted" by allowing two people to play the same "copy" of the game in a convenient and consumer-friendly manner.

It will be interesting to see whether Valve's own games will be more liberal in sharing restrictions, as that could nudge the revolution further along.

Comparing to XBOne's initial ideas is not fair. In console land, sharing was as easy as giving a disc to a friend to borrow. In Steam land, there has been no sharing at all. So I'd consider this is a baby step toward a better future for Steam, while it would have been a step back to the dark ages for the new console.

Worthless feature is worthless. Its not sharing if it locks me out of my own game library as a result. I can understand locking out the game so it can only be played by one user, but locking out the entire library is inexusable.

Comparing to XBOne's initial ideas is not fair. In console land, sharing was as easy as giving a disc to a friend to borrow. In Steam land, there has been no sharing at all. So I'd consider this is a baby step toward a better future for Steam, while it would have been a step back to the dark ages for the new console.

Honestly I like it, while I may be playing an MMO or not even home, my roommate can play games on my library from his computer now instead of going to my PC (which usually results in him not bothering to play at all).

I see nothing about offline mode, so I'm assuming it will remain intact. Meaning you could easily play the same single player games, or different ones, at the same time from multiple machines. You'll probably just have an authentication hoop jumping game to play every now and then when you need to check back in.

I guess very technically the act of sharing games at even the most rudimentary level is a "family sharing plan", but I still think it's disingenuous to call this a sharing plan in the way they have.

The only way I can see this being useful is me creating a second Steam account and sharing the games with myself. I have a gaming PC and an office PC. I log into my gaming PC with my main account, and log into my office PC with my second account. With the games shared, I don't have to constantly sign myself into one PC while consequently kicking myself off of the other.

As many others have said, congratulations on this.. um, groundbreaking announcement, Valve.

Worthless feature is worthless. Its not sharing if it locks me out of my own game library as a result. I can understand locking out the game so it can only be played by one user, but locking out the entire library is inexusable.

Sorry Valve, you done effed up.

This works exactly as one would expect it to. Valve does not like you being logged into steam from two different locations. Effectively, sharing is like giving your account info to your friend and then trying to login when they do.

Realistically, you'd hope there would just be an exception of playing the same game at the same time, but again, this is just as if I were to let someone borrow my computer with my library.

Publishers impose A LOT of restrictions on this kind of stuff. The lame sharing is probably a result of that. In any case, it's still better than no sharing, which is what we have today.

I'll agree with both points. People blame(d) Microsoft for what were, in all likelihood, restrictions imposed by people who own the rights to the game. That's unreasonable, and as it appears, the pubs are happy to impose those restrictions on ANY sharing plan.

Microsoft, at least, was on-point in trying to enable this. I didn't like the restrictions either, but if nothing else, I think Valve had to rush to get this feature out there in response, and that's good for the overall concept of game sharing. Microsoft may have screwed up in trying to push it too hard...but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that that push is might result in some pretty awesome things.

I'm still unlikely to use sharing like this...but as I said when people were discussing the restrictions on the One-- sharing, of any kind, of digital rights, is something in its' infancy. Any progress, even imperfect implementations, should be given some leeway.

As a single user with multiple PCs, I like this. I've never really liked having to log my main PC out of Steam to play on a HTPC, so I created a separate account just for the HTPC. The only problem that I run into there is that I need to then purchase two copies of a game to play on either *and* my saves aren't synchronized. Although, while this new feature solves the first problem, it doesn't solve the latter! What I really need is the ability to log in on more than one PC.

I wish they would rethink this because I would love to give access to all my Windows only games that I can't play anymore since my switch to Linux. He finally got his first gaming capable machine and it feels like such a waste to only play 1/4th of my total library of games.

That way....my son can play a game from my library, while I am playing something else.

What would be even better is they could tie accounts together into a "family plan"....so that I could share games in my account with my son if I wanted to...and we could still play multiplayer between our accounts.

This is kind of lame. Steam users have been asking for the ability to share, so games they no longer play can be borrowed by friends and/or family.

Valve responds by allowing games to be shared, BUT NO ONE ELSE CAN PLAY A GAME WHILE SHARED.

Yes, that's exactly what we wanted. Thank you, Gabe.

I have a feeling this was the result of serious pushback from publishers who didn't want the "value" of their products "diluted" by allowing two people to play the same "copy" of the game in a convenient and consumer-friendly manner.

It will be interesting to see whether Valve's own games will be more liberal in sharing restrictions, as that could nudge the revolution further along.

Then the publishers are not thinking things through.

Any effort to get a sale should be made. If they do not want free game sharing, like gamers are already had when games arrived on CDs/DVDS/etc., then they should provide a system with the digital medium to allow cheap sharing.

Such as, allowing a friend to share a game for a percentage of the cost of the original game but the original user cannot play the game while the friend is playing it and only one person can play that shared game at one time no matter how many times it was shared.

In this scenario, a friend or family member can play the game at a reduced price but the integrity of the original sale is still intact. In fact, the original sale now has added benefits to the purchaser, since only it can be shared with others.

Because, let's face it, we all have one of those friends that buys the latest game before us and then we don't want to spend the cash to do so as well. We wait for a sale, while she lords it over us that she has played it, beat it and accidentally spoils it for us every chance she gets. Months go by as publishers try to squeeze as much cash from the market place, but we do not bulk. Finally, they have a 30-60% off sale and we grab it.

Meanwhile, under the suggested plan, we could have paid 10-20% of the original cost right off the bat and played it when our friend was done. The publisher's earnings during the initial release would increase by tapping into what I like to call the "cheapskate" section of the market, and everyone is happy.

I think the ideal compromise is to allow only one copy to be shared (like a physical disc can only be in one person's possession) and the original owner cannot retrieve the game for at least X hours. Once X hours has passed, they can steal it back, revoking the license to the friend.

This is most like handing a physical disc over to someone else to play. If I want it back, I'll come to your house and get it, then you can't have it. It allows the original owner to retain actual ownership, but dole it out to a single person at a time and only that person can use it at the moment. I add the X hours in to prevent a frequent back-and-forth sharing that is not an emulation of sharing a disc and, theoretically, would more appease publishers than simply straight-up sharing.

I believe (hope, perhaps?) that this is inaccurate: "Only one person can play any game from the shared library at any given time, meaning you can't use your own Steam account while someone else is actively sharing in it."

Can anyone else verify the wording surrounding this? It would seem to me that the same GAME cannot be used by multiple people (so you can't load your copy of Torchlight and play it with your buddy while he's "borrowing" your copy), but that other games in your library are fair game (pun intended). Even the way the first half of that sentence is written supports this: "only one person can play any game from the shared library at any given time."

This could be read as "any specific game" or "any game at all." The second half of the sentence clarifies, but I can't imagine that's right. Especially since even if you grant access to your library to other devices/accounts, the DRM is still associated per-game.

So we have a system where purchased games (whether they are purchased as physical copies or digital copies) are tied to an account and can't be re-sold, but you can authorize sharing to certain friend's devices, but only one friend can play at a time. I seem to recall two months ago that such a scheme was considered "anti-consumer".

The difference is that sharing, reselling, etc. are standard abilities with consoles. MS was taking existing abilities away from customers.

These things haven't generally been possible on the PC in decades, so Valve is giving customers abilities.

I believe (hope, perhaps?) that this is inaccurate: "Only one person can play any game from the shared library at any given time, meaning you can't use your own Steam account while someone else is actively sharing in it."

Can anyone else verify the wording surrounding this? It would seem to me that the same GAME cannot be used by multiple people (so you can't load your copy of Torchlight and play it with your buddy while he's "borrowing" your copy), but that other games in your library are fair game (pun intended). Even the way the first half of that sentence is written supports this: "only one person can play any game from the shared library at any given time."

This could be read as "any specific game" or "any game at all." The second half of the sentence clarifies, but I can't imagine that's right. Especially since even if you grant access to your library to other devices/accounts, the DRM is still associated per-game.

I'm really curious...

Quote:

Once a device is authorized, the lender's library of Steam games becomes available for others on the machine to access, download, and play. Though simultaneous usage of an account’s library is not allowed, the lender may always access and play his games at any time. If he decides to start playing when a friend is borrowing one of his games, the friend will be given a few minutes to either purchase the game or quit playing

Not sure I see the point of this at all. If you effectively get locked out of your account and can't play any of your games while someone is using a game you "lend" to them, why would anyone in their right mind ever do it? If it's a single player game and I want to play it while my son wants to play something that's online or MP I just put one machine into offline mode and play the SP game on it while he can be online with another machine. No stupid "Family Share" BS required.